The Borden Privy

[d snell]

Well, I must say that I've been really underwhelmed by the response to my letter, "A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," which appeared on pages 3 and 4 of Issue 6.

In my obvious naiveté, I thought the very real prospect of finding the murder weapon/hatchet would cause at least some kind of stir. Would someone set me straight as to why this is of so little interest?

[Nancie]

your letter was very good, but nothing new to get
excited about. That ground has been covered. If
Prof. Starrs went to the trouble he did at the graves...So many informed researchers on this case...so many different solutions. Lets suppose that a hatchet was found down in the old privy. what
would that prove? only that a hatchet was found,
not who did it.

[d snell]

If this has been covered elsewhere, I'd be forever in your debt if you could tell me where.

In my opinion, the police knew all along where the weapon was, but didn't go after it because there was no practical means of doing so. Even if they could have engineered a way, and even if a hatchet (say) was found, it wouldn't prove it was the murder weapon, nor would it prove that Lizzie put it there. And it's not going to prove it today, either. I think it would "prove" Lizzie's guilt to those who already think her guilty. But those who think her innocent would certainly not be forced to change their minds.

We cannot escape that: The murder weapon was never found, and there is only one place which has not been searched for it. Coincidently, that one place would be a dandy place to hide a murder weapon, and it is in an area where Lizzie freely admitted to being at the time of the murders. So why not exhaust this last possibility, and argue over what if anything is found - when and if it's found?

[Harry]

There are numerous references to the privy (or the vault as it was referred to) being searched or at least looked at. In Rebello, page 87, describing the barn: "... Another door that led to the privy vault was at the end of the barn. ..."

Policeman Desmond (August 8th) in the Witness statements, page 38:

"Emma spoke about a "lumber pile in the yard", and thought it would be a good place to search. Mr. Bryant, and myself went into the cellar; and it was thoroughly searched by Edson, Conners, Quigley and Desmond. From there, we went and searched the barn, lumber pile, yard, privy vault and well, also John Crowe's yard. which is on south side of Borden house."

Policeman Edson at the Trial, page 673:

"Q. Is there anything more you wish to say about the barn?
A. We searched the out-house in the barn, the vault underneath the out-house."

Marshal Hilliard at the Preliminary, page 416:

"... From there I went to the rear end of the barn, and looked into a vault that was there. ..."

Walter Stevens, reporter, page 1391, Trial:

"Q. Did you also look in the vault behind the barn?
A. Looked into it."


The Fall River Globe, August 5th:

"Search for the Weapon. The interest in the search for the weapon is second only to the interest in the search for the murderer. Five officers have scoured the house and barn from top to bottom without success. Bedding was overturned, clothes closets were overhauled, a wood and coal pile were removed and not the slightest trace of blood or a murderous weapon could be found. An old well was partially dug up and a vault was cleaned out. All of the hay in the barn was forked over."

Again, the Fall River Globe, August 5th:

"... This morning Mr. Morse spent some time walking about the rear yard. In one of his perambulations he stopped at the vault that had been overhauled and said he wished he could find someone who would cover it up. ..."

How thorough these searches were is anybody's guess. Certainly not a pleasant chore on a warm August day.

[Audrey]

Darling Harry to the rescue!

Dave-- I did find your letter again and re-read it. I had not paid much attention to it before. Sorry.

You really are convinced Lizzie's differing alibis were meant to indicate she was indisposed in the barn privvy? Really?

[theebmonique]

Maybe in this case, like with the way Prof. Starrs tried to get what he wanted, the 'bull in a china shop' approach is not the way to go ?


Tracy...

[d snell]

My sincerest thanks, Harry. Like I said, I'm forever in YOUR debt. You are a gentleman, a scholar, and another gentleman for qualifing your answer. You could give lessons on manners, etc., to the other responders.

Sorry, but I've got to go with Ockham's razor on this one.

[theebmonique]

Dave,

Please do not label my assessment of your theory/approach as needing lessons on manners. It is just my opinion at this point. When you come out as strong as you have about your theory...using some of the phrases you did in your letter, you have to expect that some of us may disagree, and just because we may not see things the way you do, doesn't make us wrong...yet. You MIGHT be right...but until you know that for sure, please give the rest of us the same latitude with our thoughts/opinions that you wish for yours. That's what this forum is all about.

Thank you,
Tracy...

[Audrey]

I did not intend to offend... Rather to start a substantial duscussion in this thread.

Sometimes it is hard to keep rehashing the same old facts and theories.... I was hoping this thread would take off... Guess not.

[d snell]

If anyone wishes to recall: My letter, at the very outset, openly acknowledged the fact that there would be differences of opinion on the statements I was about to make. Also, that my original post was just about as self-deprecating as I could make it. For my trouble I got one intelligent, useful reply, and three spider bites.

If we can get back to the subject for the moment, I would like to enter the following, from the Knowlton Papers, pgs. 61-62. It is the final paragraph of a letter written by Knowlton, dated 9/3/1892:
"I am not at all satisfied that any such search has been made for the weapon as absolutely to exclude the presence of it somewhere on the premises. But to make an absolutely thorough search for it might involve the total destruction of the buildings; and this, doubtless, is not worthwhile, especially as the weapon when found cannot absolutely settle the identify (sic) of the murderer." [Italics in original.]

[Angel]

Please don't take offense so easily. I am new here too, but I have found that all of the people in this group are very nice, and certainly don't mean to antagonize anyone.

[theebmonique]

I don't have my issue 6 in hand at the moment, but is there a specific reason that the new owners have given for not further checking out the privy vault in the bahn whilst they renovate ?


Tracy...

[Miller]

First time poster, here. This is an interestsing thread to me because for years I have wondered why the police didn't drain the vault. Maybe thats what DA Knowlton meant in that letter. Would the "delicate sensibilities" that served to ward off too much testimony about Lizzie menstruating be the same to prevent any testimony as to whether or not the police searched, or had searched, into the muck and guck of that privy? Anxiety was not a characteristic of Lizzie's demeanor during the search for the weapon, almost like "go ahead, you'll never find it". I don't think we can rule out the possibility of it having been dropped there by her, or a fleeing "other" assailant just based on the various mentions of the search, which, in my opinion, were cursury searches at best. Does anyone agree with this thinking? And it is possible the additional expense of unsealing that privy and doing a dig/search is an expense the new owners dont' feel the end result justifies.

Thank you for any responses.

[Tina-Kate]

My memory is rusty (& unfortunately a search thru the archives did not help), but I remember this being discussed previously. Apparently, privies at the time were periodically serviced by "The Honey Dew Man" who removed/treated the waste & somewhat sanitized the facilities. Depending how long the privy was kept in service at the house, this may have been done several times prior to the dismantling of the Borden barn in the 30s, giving ample opportunity for the discovery of an axe hidden among the muck.

[Doug]

I think Tina-Kate is correct about the periodic cleaning out of privy vaults. My guess is that privy was cleaned before 1892 and after as well. If the police were not satisfied with their own efforts to look into, search, overhaul, and/or clean out the Borden privy vault they could have engaged someone who did this for a living. After all the authorities hired a man to crack Andrew's safe and someone else to break into the chimney masonry of the house.

If I was the guilty party and wanted to hide a weapon where it would not be found the privy vault in my barn would be one of the last places I would consider. While the job of cleaning a privy vault is unpleasant it is not impossible, especially after a double homicide has been committed on the premises.

[Miller]

Thank you all for the responses. All good information and some I didn't have before. But I tend to think old Andrew would not have paid out for the cleaning, on a regular schedule anyhoo, of that privy. A man who would use kerosene before gas lighting...well.

[theebmonique]

Audrey and I were discussing the possibility that maybe Lizzie went to the bahn and only claimed to be there looking for sinkers, etc...but really was there because she was "indisposed"...thus making it possible for her to not get dirty...not be near the iron for sinkers...nor leave any footprints in the loft. Maybe it was while she was "sitting", that she ate her pears. Audrey thinks although this is a possibility, maybe Lizzie would be more likely to use the cellar privvy for Mother Nature's calls...rather than the one in the bahn. Maybe I am just too tired to keep my facts straight ?


Tracy...

[Allen]

I think it Lizzie were "indisposed" it would've been more convenient, and make more sense, for her to use the water closet down cellar than to run out to the one in the barn. If I had to make a choice between using the restroom inside the house, or running out to one in the garage, I'd stay in the house. I don't see the reasoning for believing she would choose to go out to the barn and not the cellar. I also agree Andrew would probably not have paid to have the privy cleaned out. It was probably seldom used, and he would've thought it an unnecessary expense in my opinion.I for one was hoping the privy would be excavated by the new owners to see if an axe or hatchet was indeed found. Even though it could not establish conclusively who committed the murders, the finding of the possible murder weapon after all this time would be a pretty sweet accomplishment, and it could only add to the mystery of the case, and give us something new to debate.

[theebmonique]

I guess I was mostly thinking of a way she really could be in the barn without getting dirty, leaving footprints...etc. Maybe she was on her way to the barn to look for sinkers (really) and to munch on a few pears when she realized she had to "go"...and being closer to the barn privvy than the one down cellar, she went with what was closest. But, I am also thinking that if it wasn't used much...maybe there was no need to have it cleaned on any kind of regular basis....maybe there was not enough of anything in it to 'hide' the ever elusive murder weapon ? Ok, that's my reasoning...for now anyway.


Tracy...

[Miller]

If I had just chopped up Pa and needed an excuse to where I was, why not say I was in the cellar? Didn't hear a thing. Didn't see a thing. Why didn't she place herself there? Most probably because that ice cream wagon driver kid saw her comin round from the barn to the side steps and Lizzie noticed she had been seen outside. So "down in the cellar" was no good. Now, lemme see, where was I? Out in the yard. Well, really only for a little bit, then in the barn....doin what? looking for sinkers...well, actually UP in the barn. Certainly not in the privy. Absolutely not in the privy if that's where I chucked the murder weapon, which btw, wouldn't it still show evidence of blood, human blood even after all this time? I suppose there's lots of other junk that would come up, bottles, cans, privvies yielded lots of those when the vaults were cleaned up. But if she dropped it into that yucky mucky muck and the vault was never drained ueven to the time the barn was torn down in the late 20's, well there you are. And yes, it wouldn't PROVE who dropped it there but it sure would lend itself to this theory if that hatchet head was circa 1892 and yielded human blood. It's worth a dig, I think. Last chance and all that.

[d snell]

The new owner never gave me a reason for not being particularly interested in the dig. Have heard a rumor that he will do a search, but he doesn’t communicate with the likes of me on such matters.

The “water closet” in the basement was not, in my opinion, the kind of sit-down facility we would think of today. Rather, it was a “slop sink” where chamber pots could be emptied and rinsed out (“flushed” out).

When I started with all this I read every academic paper I could find on excavating privies. I learned more than I EVER wanted to know about outhouses.

Periodic clean-outs were often necessary because there was, at the time, no such thing as garbage pick-up. Both organic and inorganic waste was routinely disposed of in the privy. The draining efficiency of the soil varied from site to site, and those that didn’t drain well required more maintenance than those which did. As a practical matter, the only way to do a clean-out was to lower a bucket down through the hole, and pull up whatever fluid stuff as would fill it. In the case of the Borden privy, there was no way - and no need - to ever scrape the vault back to the bare dirt, or to the brick or wood liners which were used to line the sides of the vault later on, as a sanitary precaution. Anything as heavy as an ax would have sunk to the very bottom of the vault, far below the level which could ever be reached by a manual clean-out.

It’s interesting to note that before the Borden’s well was filled in, sometime prior to the murders, their water supply and their privy were barely 25-feet apart. But the house was built about 1854, twenty-five years before anyone ever heard of “germ.” The rudimentary municipal water supplies of the era were often contaminated by privies and industrial waste. The Borden household didn’t need to be (allegedly) poisoned, or to have eaten spoiled mutton to have gotten deathly ill. One pitcher of lemonade made from bad water could easily have felled them all.

It’s also interesting to note that when old privies are excavated there is not a speck of that solid, odiferous stuff one might expect to find. It is all eventually absorbed into the surrounding dirt, and simply ceases to exist in its original form. “Dust to dust,” as it were.

[Miller]

"dust to dust" but glass to glass and most metals.

No wonder cholera (sp) was epidemic in those times.

[Audrey]

Have we ever been certain of the type of facilities the Bordens had in the cellar???

[Kat]

Preliminary Hearing
Bridget
33
Q. That privy out behind the barn, was that used by any member of the family, was that in use?
A. Mr. Borden used it.

Q. Did anybodyelse besides him?
A. Mrs. Borden sometimes.

Q. Did you ever know the girls to use it?
A. No Sir.

It's possible Andrew used it for more privacy as he would ultimately have to share the cellar water closet with 4 females.

We have plenty of axes and hatchets already- one serious contender as the murder weapon being the claw-headed hatchet, the star of the preliminary hearing.
It wasn't until the trial that the handless hatchet became a viable murder weapon-contender. Then there is Crowe's roof hatchet which was eventually claimed by its owner and we don't know if it was ever examined.
To look in the privy vault in the barn, one must be convinced none of these other implements did the deed.

I believe Lee-ann, in one of her responses on this Forum stated that stopping demolition in order to excavate was not really monetarily feasible and it would slow everything down even more than the recent bad weather.
Please see her own comments as I don't wish to quote her:
viewtopic.php?p=7496&highlight=#7496

[d snell]

A couple of months ago I talked on the phone with the architect who is doing the project, Mr. Cass. He was unaware of any of this, and said that from a construction standpoint, there was no problem with doing an excavation.

Fundraising would have gotten underway months ago if the owner had expressed any interest whatever in such a project.

If Knowlton had had a single, mere shred of proof that he had located the weapon, we would know about it. The handleless hachet was used in court out of sheer desperation. In my opinion, the roof hatchet was a hoax. Today, no one even knows where it is.

[Tina-Kate]

A few corrections. The barn was dismantled in the spring of 1929. The Borden house was built in 1845, not 1854.

[Kat]

You have a point about the hatchets but no weapon could then be tested like one found now- so it's like holding out hope for a relic, untouched, that can pass thru forensic tests.
If those implements which were found at the time could have been checked as thoroughly as one found now, then we might not need another implement.
If inundation of muck for a century degrades any forensic material, I don't see much use in looking further.

[Allen]

Well I must be the only one who thinks that even if it can't be tested, it would still be a great find after all this time. Because even if it cannot be tested for blood, a hatchet or axe, found in the privy of 92 second street where a murder occurred with such a weapon, would still be a very interesting find. Lizzie claimed to be in the barn during her fathers murder, after all. And who knows, this may be the last chance to find it ,if it is there, during my lifetime.

[stuartwsa]

I think it would be both interesting and enlightnening to see what else might be found down the privy. Any sort of medicinal or liquor bottles would throw an intriguing sidelight on the inhabitants of 92 Second Street, don't you think?

[john]

Kat, where did you find ongoing information about the Crowe's roof hatchet? I found reference to it in an old newspaper article and tried to call a few people in Fall River to find a relative of the young man who found it but got nowhere.

[d snell]

Excellent posting, Stuart! You're a thinkin' man. Would also be fun to see how many women's patent-remedy elixir bottles are down there - the kind which very often included what we call "narcotics" today.

[Miller]

The "Borden privvy" and the Forrum Privy - with the latter is that reserved for "priviledged" members. I get a message saying something to that effect when I click on that title. If so, rather elitist, IMHO.

[d snell]

That’s an interesting extract from the preliminary hearing: Bridget being asked if “the girls” ever used the privy, and her answering “no.” Too bad they didn’t go on to ask, “Could they ever have used it without your knowledge?” and, “In your opinion, would they refuse to use it under any circumstances, even if the entire household was down with the green-apple trots?”

Have often wondered why the police never inventoried all the hatchets (or did they?). Like asking Bridget, “If you wanted to build a fire in the house, and needed a hatchet to cut kindling, where would you find one?” If one was missing, it would suggest an inside job, although it wouldn’t put the finger on anyone in particular. Guess that would have run afoul of the well-established legal principle that “A lack of evidence is not evidence.”

Speaking of which, here’s a little something I put together, strictly for my own amusement:
— • —
If you seek the One True Lizzie, memorize the following,
and carry medication if you are allergic to horsefeathers:
“Truth can be created by the repetition of a lie.”
“The less one knows, the more one suspects.”
“The facts, however interesting, are irrelevant.”
“A lack of evidence is not evidence.”
“Truth is what you find, and what you make of it.”
“The wise are prone to doubt.”
“Assumptions avail at one’s peril.”
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
“The College of Hearsay Knowledge is not
an accredited institution.”
“History is a pack of lies.”
— • —

[Audrey]

d snell...

Can you please explain to me the logic of anyone rushing to the barn in an "emergency" when the cellar was closer? The only time I can imagine it would be if the usual one was occupied. At the time of Lizzie's barn visit Abby was dead, Andrew was either dead or asleep on the sofa and Bridgett was up in her room-- therefore no one was using the closer, and probably cleaner facilities in the cellar.

[john]

Unless she just wanted to, or had to get out of the house.

[Audrey]

I am not saying that I do no think it would be interesting to see if there was a hatchet in the vault... I would love to know if there was or not. I am quesitoning Lizzie "sitting" in the barn privy or rushing to it in a sitting emergency...

[d snell]

Sorry. I tend to jump back and forth between: Did she commit the crime? and, Should she rightfully have been convicted under our legal system? But they are 2 entirely separate questions. I’ve learned never to confuse “justice” with the “justice system.”
This will be rather broad-brush, but here goes...

So, let’s say: Here’s Lizzie, she’s just committed the murders and needs (1.) to get rid of the weapon, and, (2.) an alibi for where she was at the time of the murders. She does the smart, instinctive thing -- goes to the privy and dumps the ax.
But what if she’s seen outside (as she reportedly was)? She can’t deny being out there if she is seen. So what is going to be her reason/alibi for being out of the house? For whatever reason, she gives any number of different lame excuses, all of which put her in the immediate vicinity of the barn. But she’s never pinned down as to which one of them was the truth, and why she lied about the others. How come? She doesn’t have to permit herself to be pinned down, because she doesn’t have to testify in court, and doesn’t have to prove herself innocent.
That’s the Did she do it? part, and it crosses over into the Should she have been convicted? part.
The weapon is taken care of, but she still needs an alibi. She sez to herself, “OK, now what reason can I give for being in the barn long enough for 2 murders have been committed, and for my not seeing the fleeing culprit”?
Her story will be: “Lookit, it’s on the record that the whole family, myself included, was sick as a dog with stomach trouble. You can’t pin 2 heinous, unspeakably-evil murders on me just because an illness forced me to stay in the privy for an extended period of time. OK, so I did say different things at different times about where I was. I’m a prim, proper, God-fearing, church-going, Victorian-era, New England lady from a fine family, and I don’t discuss such things with men under any circumstances. You’re bright guys, connect the dots. Jeez, do I have to spell it out for ya?!” No, she didn’t. The prosecution and the jury caught on easily. There would be a discreet gentlemen’s agreement not to, er, “go there.”
She didn’t have to explain why she didn’t use the basement facility because, as I maintain above, it wasn’t a sit-down facility. It was for emptying chamber pots, and such a vessel would - under the circumstances - be a bit inadequate for the job. Even if there was a conventional-type toilet there, she could - by the same rationale - easily have claimed “Occupied/Occupado/Occupados.”

[Smudgeman]

If she was going to contend that everybody was so sick, and she had to stay in the privy for an extended amount of time, where does the eating of pears come into play? If I am supposedly sick with vomiting and possibly diarreah, I am NOT going to eat 2 or three pears in between periods of sickness.

[Allen]

If the thing down cellar was classified as a water closet, then it was a sit down. A water closet WAS a toilet. Water closet = the victorian name for toilet. I knew this by, of all ways, watching Little House on the Prairie growing up. There is an episode where the Olsen's install a water closet, and cannot get it to work correctly.

http://www.vintagetub.com/asp/feature_i ... n=sc&cg=82

http://www.victoriancrapper.com/VictorianBath.HTML

http://www2002.stoke.gov.uk/museums/gla ... ushed4.htm

Preliminary Hearing
Bridget
33
Q. That privy out behind the barn, was that used by any member of the family, was that in use?
A. Mr. Borden used it.

Q. Did anybodyelse besides him?
A. Mrs. Borden sometimes.

Q. Did you ever know the girls to use it?
A. No Sir.

And if it did not contain a sit down, how believable would it be for them to take Bridgets word that the girls did not use the privy in the barn?

[Audrey]

I am with Melissa... I think the facilities in the basement were sit down and it was a far more desirable location to commence with business than the one in the barn. Andrew may very well have used it-- and I can imagine it was not a sit down thing when he did either!

[Audrey]

BTW-- Where I come from the toilet and the bathing facilities are rarely in the same room and we do refer to the toilet area as a "water closet".

[Nancie]

I think this is getting off the point of: is there a hatchet buried in the vault/privy and if there is, do
we care? would it prove anything besides an old
hatchet was found in the vault? could it be connected to August 1892? I just don't see it making a celebration in this case.

[Miller]

If a hatchet were found and it was determined to be circa 1892 and it had human blood on it....well, one can surmise I would think.

I think d snell may be on to something about the reluctance to bring it up too directly. Let us recall that both the defense and prosecution agreed to avoid any detail discussion concerning Lizzie's menstrual cycle at the time. It would seem logical that questioning her as to if she was "inside" the privy would necessitate asking directly: "What were you doing in there?" The visual, in Victorian times, would be no less appealing than it is in contemporary times.

I am of the opinion that's it worth the effort/time/expense to PROVE via absensce of any circa 1892 hatchet head being in there. We could then, definitely put that area of speculation to rest once and for all.

[Allen]

Well maybe not a celebration. But, I think it would raise some new questions, and maybe give us some answers to the old ones if they excavate. Who knows what they might find. Maybe some other type evidence would be unearthed also. But we will never know anything unless someone decides to look for it.

[Audrey]

I can see what Nancie means....

Sometimes I wish we had something tangible and new to talk about. Finding a hatchet in the privy would be nice-- but we would be no closer to a solution than before! But-- do we want a solution? An iron clad one???

[Kat]

That's my point as well. What use is it to find another implement? We have plenty! We have 4 or 5 or 6 already and we don't know what to do with those!
I think the time is way past finding a weapon that can prove anything- and some are vascillating between it being buried in muck but still having evidence on it? I think it's a fixation to dwell on the privy. Lizzie was outside. Why not dwell on the pigeon house, or maybe she buried it or maybe she stuck it in a tree, hiding in plain site. If we are going to look in one place, why not look everywhere?
(As if we are going to look...)
Stuart has the right idea. If we're looking, let's look for other stuff too- an archealogical dig on that property would surely reap all kinds of tin cans and buttons.

When the barn came down they found a hammer which at first was reported as the finding of the weapon. This proved to be unrelated to the case. What about that "weapon?" It was a hammer I believe, but was that just a story to appease people at the time, and it might really have been the weapon? We can't know the answer to that either.

As to Crowe's roof hatchet, I don't have any more info than Flynn's excellent Mysterious Axe and the contemporary news reports.

If the B&B had the time and money, a dig of the whole property would be worthwhile.

[d snell]

Things are not looking well at all for my great “No-sit-down-facility-in-the-basement” theory. The Oxford English Dictionary has a rather brief entry for “water closet.” It doesn’t mention anything about them having the conventional flushing system we know today. It talks more about the ejecta being received into a “pan,” and then washed away into a drain by some form of water supply. It clearly suggests, though, that they were sit-down.
An engineer in the FR Sewer Department told me the house’s connection to the main line is seven feet below the pavement, and that the main line there today is in all probability the original one installed way back when. He said it would be close, but that because the house would have been built at least a foot or two above the grade-level of the street, there was probably enough room there so that a drain line, even at basement-floor level, could have gravity-fed adequately into the main line.

[Audrey]

wasn't there talk at one time about it being an "earth privy"????

[FairhavenGuy]

If a hatchet were found and it was determined to be circa 1892 and it had human blood on it....well, one can surmise I would think.

I doubt if you dug up a human body that had been buried for 100 years you'd find traces of human blood.

The amount of blood that could remain on the head of a hatchet would have been digested by the bacteria within the privy, probably within hours of it having been dropped in there. The wooden handle would be long decomposed by now and the iron of the hatchet itself would be a mass of rust.

There would be absolutely no way to tell an 1892 hatchet from a 1925 hatchet or probably even a 1960 hatchet. The design of most hatchet an axe heads hasn't changed much. (There are probably some companies today casting tool heads in molds many, many years old.) There would certainly be no readable markings on it.

Plus, as Nancie and Kat have repeated. We've got plenty of hatchets anyway. Another one means nothing.

[Kat]

Mr. Snell, we have as a member a master at this named William. He has written for the LBQ, etc. He is busy right now, but he has, in the past, convinced us that the water closet in the cellar was a flush type convenience, and I'm sorry not to have informed you of this any earlier. I thought maybe William would explain, but I guess he is not able to at this time.
I don't think I have source for you and that's a reason not to expect you to just believe it.
Kudos to your original approach to research!